The proposed seven-story building to rise on the prominent southeast corner of California and Powell has been rendered in place, designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects and BDE Architecture and finished in granite, stucco, stone and bronze.

You know, I’m generally not a big fan of the work by Stern, but I understand the historic context, and “traditional” character of this neighborhood.

In this case, the detailing seems subtle and understated, classic, restrained, traditional fenestration and appealing light color of the façade. I think it works here and would be a good addition to this very prominent corner.

Ah, no. Wouldn’t be caught dead in that getup. More like my typical black jeans, black t shirt and boots, while I ponder the importance of understanding a more “conservative” architecture, that fits well for a particular place, and at the same time, continuing my admiration for International style pure modernism.

Mr Frank. It’s not going to happen as much as you whine on and on. What I do or what I did as an architect is not relevant to the discussions here. You need to understand that.

And if you find architectural criticism with a certain EARNED level of intelligence and experience to be annoying to you, then perhaps you need to spend time reading about it. Try Architectural Record, Architect among two well respected professional magazines that deal with this subject.

“This accounts for the little signal house at the intersection Powell and California. The signal house man shines a green light if the intersection is clear of cars and a red one if another cable car is approaching it. This way both operators know if they have clear passage, thus avoiding obvious problems.”

Can all developers please hire Stern? Pretty please? Look how well this respects the neighborhood and is pleasing to the eye. It has a nice art deco feel to it (especially the parapet); I reckon that in 20 year’s time this will still look okay. Unlike much of the dreck that’s been churned out over the course of the past decade which looks dated a year after completion. Then again, the 60s and 70s did much more damage to SF’s architecture (a la Richmond District Specials).

Robert Stern is the Ralph Lauren of architecture. He is very skillful at tastefully cribbing the work of earlier architects. Usually, this turns out quite well. Sometimes not, as we can see in the Gap Building on the Embarcadero. It’s a clear miss. A lame attempt to echo the Ferry Building with no architecture; merit of its own. It is better than the dreck that is usually built – I am looking at you, Intercontinental Hotel – but disappointing from an A List architect.

That seems like a good interpretation. Although the Gap HQ on the Embarcadero is not terrible. Yes they tried to play off the clock tower at the Ferry Building, but the overall look seems to have survived the test of time (albeit just 15 years). It is reminiscent of the brick warehouses at the Northeast Waterfront district and does a good job at mimicking the warehouses.

Where are the no parking screamers? I always notice that if the development is for the wealthy, nobody seems to mind a minimum of one parking space per unit, but if it is for a slightly less wealthy buyer, the finger waggers demand that parking spaces be reduced, especially in “transit rich” neighborhoods like this.

I am FOR allowing builders to provide off street parking to both the rich, middle and low income residents, but why is there such a double standard shown by those who feel they should have a say in restricting parking?

Do the anti off street parking screamers feel parking should not be allowed or reduced ONLY for lower and middle income projects as some sort of punishment for people who work and struggle to keep financially stable?

Ok, fine: it should have less parking. And I approve of the elimination of the unnecessary driveway.

But I am not nearly as opposed to builders voluntarily building more parking as I am to the city forbidding new housing construction unless it is accompanied by expensive parking garages. And that’s a practice that significantly reduces the amount of lower-cost housing that is built, particularly lower-cost market rate housing.

Your framing of the issue as a “punishment” for people with less money is bizarre. If someone expresses a wish that more housing is built that doesn’t feature wine cellars, 24-hour doormen and two bathrooms for every bedroom, would you accuse them of punishing poor people by denying them these luxuries?

It’s a nice structure, if too short. I appreciate the restrained traditional style, but not sure why it takes a tip tier architect. Make a style book of old buildings, anything that’a a copy gets a design review exception.

Closer to what the city needs but they could have gone a notch more classical, especially with the windows that look very 80’s condo’ish, and are intended to appeal to those looking for more traditional.

We have an affordable parking crisis in this city! I am sick of greedy developers ruining our parking lots with condos for the 1%. Where will the working class and homeless park? We need to fight to preserve our city’s character!